Intro...

This site is all about environmental consciousness--how to find, inform, and apply it. It connects the dots between science, sustainability, and the spirit, to help build a new relationship with our planet. Individual by individual.

Welcome. If you're who I think you are, you've come to the right place. This is probably not a great destination for hard core types, deep in the mainstream (or some tributary) of environmental activism. Should you fit this description, keep doing what you're doing. And I'll keep glued to your blogs, websites, books, campaigns, movies, talks, etc.

This site, instead, is intended to weave a web of understanding out of all this stuff. To show the connections, the interrelatedness of it all. It's a place to come and sample, learn, and start to get your own eConsciousness. It's a platform to visit and then jump off--and to revisit from time to time for fresh thinking. Because, you see, I plan to make this grow, and in so doing to make it even more worthwhile, more helpful, more all-encompassing.

So how does this work? This illustration may help (click to see it larger)... It's like this...I read, study, surf and synthesize. I link, comment on, interpret, and guide. I inform, educate, facilitate, and advocate. I may even entertain. What you get is as real-time as possible, limited only by my brain and my two hands and the extent of my resourcefulness. You can look at it this way--you have one, single overachieving type of person here who will save you the trouble of making sense of it all.

Being a bit presumptuous here...but some of you may have been wondering 'where did this guy go?'. Well, the short answer is I've been approaching sustainability from an artist's point of view. Writing has taken a back seat.

I've been painting my way to clearer understanding of our connection with the planet we live on. This has resulted in a body of work you can see here examining our natural environs, using both traditional and (increasingly) not so traditional landscape techniques. My medium is pastel, and I can be seen with this wonderfully portable palette out on the marshes of Essex, or on the rocks of Cape Ann, or further down the Maine Coast...figuring out how to translate what I'm seeing and what it's telling me. Which is, basically, let's learn how to tread more lightly on our surroundings.

I call my site Understanding Place (otherwise known as www.larrygrob.com) and it's developing nicely into a visual portfolio, a sustainability thinking site, and a place where I can engage with people interested in sustainability oriented communication projects. Check it out.

Incidentally, if anyone's interested, the site was built using Prosite, which is a marvelous platform for creatives of all types to share their work and aspirations. It's from Behance. My Behance artist portfolio can be seen here.

Nothing scientific, or profound even, about this musing...but when you think about it, we've come a long way, baby. Little would I have known (hoped, maybe, but not known), while picking up roadside trash in rural Vermont on that first Earth Day, that we would find ourselves at such a sustained level of planetary awareness--and debate that goes along with it--in 2009. Sure, it's been a long time. But come what may as humanity muddles forward, our eConsciousness is here to stay and will henceforth never be far from the spotlight, regardless the distractions.

With the clock ticking down to Earth Day the next, I find it gratifying and myself hopeful to see the amount of ink and pixels and decibels carrying forth much needed debate and study. Two bits I read today made the point clear in a timely way. One promotes the contentions of the University of Vermont's Gund Institute for Ecological Economics that "ecology comes before economics". The other decries this notion and promotes growth and nation-affluence as the true answer to our environmental ills.

First, the Gund view, which notes that...

"The most obvious fact about ecological economics is that ecology comes before economics...There is abundant evidence that "further material growth no longer significantly contributes to improvement in quality of life...Yet our institutions and industries rush on "like a runaway train," pushing for greater and greater material production and consumption. They're driven by an underlying worldview that assumes growth equals progress." (I refer you to the full communique by graduate student Rachael Beddoe, and I apologize for my slight continuity edits.)

This in contrast to John Tierny's view in the New York Times dot com piece entitled...

"Use Energy, Get Rich and Save the Planet."

Tierny maintains that "1. There will be no green revolution in energy or anything else. No leader or law or treaty will radically change the energy sources for people and industries in the United States or other countries. No recession or depression will make a lasting change in consumers’ passions to use energy, make money and buy new technology — and that, believe it or not, is good news, because...

2. The richer everyone gets, the greener the planet will be in the long run."

So...who to believe? How to figure who's right, who's wrong, and where the truth lies? That's, I'm afraid where I'm going to leave you hanging for now. But in doing so, I stress to point out that healthy debate, and the constructive learning that results are whirling all about us. If you're reading this, linking to explore further, or simply musing along with me, then be assured...your eConsciousness is calling. Listen. And follow it.

Climate change comes in unexpected shapes and forms. Consider weeds. Those nasty little (or not so) things that trigger our allergies and resist our cleverest efforts to do them in. We love to hate 'em. But now I find out we're in for a big surprise, as weeds have begun acting "like ecology on amphetamines".

These words, from a New York Times Magazine piece by Tom Christopher, should snap any but the most clueless of us to attention. In Can Weeds Help Solve the Climate Crisis? Christopher takes us through a frightful look at what weeds are, what they've become, and what's in store for us as the planet warms and CO2 concentrations continue to rise. Obviously I like learning stuff, and this article is as accessible as it is entertaining in chronicling the extensive study of these nasty critters and sometimes friends.

Did you know...

That CO2 is one of the four essential resources for plant (and of course, weed) growth?

That weeds grown in CO2 enriched environments produce more pollen?

That plants like poison ivy grow much more vigorously at high levels of CO2--and they exhibit far more potency than they otherwise would?

Boy, can I relate to that, having recently tried to pull up the ever increasing amount of p.i. sprouting just yards from my home.

And, too, I'm especially sobered by the implications of the notion that "coexistence with mankind has given rise to the sort of tough plants that flourish despite the worst we can do." Among other things, Christopher and the researchers he profiles force us to ask if we can muster the adaptability to deal with our new world order that these impressively opportunistic plants have.

Of one thing I'm sure: I won't be able to look at a field of pretty, but invasively threatening purple loosestrife without my eConsciousness getting pinged. Thanks, Tom.

OK, I looked at moving towards corporate sustainability from the 30,000 foot level in my last post, but here I want to comment on those who are already taking on the thorny issues that lie below. And for this perspective, I'd like to thank ClimateBiz, a website steeped in the who and how to of this movement.

The first focuses on establishing the carbon footprint for a company's products. In itself, this can handled in several ways, according to Schuchard's overview: 1) the carbon embodied in the product and produced throughout its life cycle, 2) the carbon reduced through emissions reductions associated with the product's creation, and 3) the carbon mitigated by the company through purchases of offsets designed to assure product-based carbon neutrality.

While complicated in practice, this form of corporate carbon neutrality is being practiced--by companies like Timberland, with its Green Index product ratings--and is being studied, and piloted, and standardized in many areas.

The second approach involves establishing, and managing, the carbon footprint of a company's supply chain--the multiple tiers of sources for materials, supplies, and other inputs. Like the corporate social responsibility (CSR) commitments many companies extend to their business partners and suppliers, this approach strives for a kind of systemic carbon neutrality. It is, as Schuchard reveals, extremely challenging and complex...but it is attracting a great amount of attention.

Clearly I don't do this emerging field justice. But I hope you'll take from this the fact that, while being green is far from easy, it is becoming increasingly mainstream. Across business sectors, things are happening, and much more is to come. Invest a little time with resources like ClimateBiz and you see where you can jump in. The time's right. And you'll be in good company.

Say you're a business person who's read all about what the private sector can do to promote a sustainable future. You're intrigued, and you want to help your company understand and act. You know that it's about more than changing the lights, carpooling, and recycling paper waste. And you've come upon the big idea...let's be carbon neutral!

OK so far. But as you dig deeper, you realize that your good intentions could all go awry before you even get started. You've discovered that there are as many interpretations of just what being carbon neutral is as there are business cases to look at.

Thankfully, along comes the guidance of two organizations who've been doing a lot of thinking about just this issue. Clean Air -- Cool Planet and Forum for the Future, U.S. and U.K. based non-profits, respectively, have just published Getting to Zero: Defining Corporate Carbon Neutrality(download PDF here). They steer clear of the hype and offer most reasoned and realistic guidance. Theirs is a step-wise approach, more likely to resonate with your colleagues during the critical first phase of any carbon neutral initiative--defining it strategically, and with vision and clarity.

Though I can't promise you'll see fireworks, your eConsciousness will sparkle just a little more brightly, I'm sure. Good reading.

As I pinball my way through the sustainability game, I wrack up points and pointers but rarely hit the big bonus. This time, though, I think I did.

For all the focus on cars and gas and coal and electricity and on and on, we tend to lose sight of one thing that drives them all--consumption. I know I touched on it earlier in posts about our unsustainably wasteful industrial processes and the like. And I've waxed sentimental about how we disregard our planet's natural cycles and are slow to learn its lessons. But then, waxing is not nearly as interesting a way to make a point stick as is...entertaining...right?

That's where Annie Leonard comes in. She tells a story that needs to be told and does it with a creative flair that had me entranced. And agitated. And defenseless to resist the urge to blog about it. The 'it' is The Story of Stuff, her 20 minute expose/lesson on the material economy and all that it superbly hides from our view. But wait. How about hearing it in the words of her site itself...

"The Story of Stuff exposes the connections between a huge number of environmental and social issues, and calls us together to create a more sustainable and just world. It'll teach you something, it'll make you laugh, and it just may change the way you look at all the stuff in your life forever."

To this I would add that while many have You-Tubed effective and snappy sustainability messages, few have wrapped them in an enlightening and resource-full web site of its own. Kudos to Annie, her various partners, and the creative folks at Free Range Studios for bringing us their good stuff. My eConsciousness is most grateful, and yours will be too.

It is only fitting that I end my posting sabbatical with a piece highlighting education--especially since I kicked off my break musing on the eco-inspiration I took from a recent college reunion. What makes this an especially encouraging entry is that it is about something very real, a slice of the proverbial pie in the sky that has landed right in front of us, today!

Just down the road, tucked away on a wooded campus within eyesight of the Boston skyline is the Cambridge School of Weston, justifiably proud creator of the new Garthwaite Center for Science and Art--proof living that not only do art and science belong together, but also that enlightened green design belongs, and fits seamlessly, in the progressive campus of tomorrow. The Garthwaite Center is a state of the art, 21,000 square foot LEED Platinum certified facility that appears to have left no stone unturned in its embrace of sustainable design and functionality.

Its passive solar design, wood pellet boiler system, composting toilets, and green roof enhance this remarkable building's efficiency and minimize its ecological footprint. It features an enthalpy heat recovery wheel that "captures and recycles up to at least 87 percent of the heat that would otherwise be lost". Storm water runoff is diverted to underground chambers and slowly returned to the aquifer, and things like waterless urinals, triple glazed windows, and low-flow faucets deliver additional benefits. There's lots more too.

But equally intriguing is the way the Center has been designed to serve as a teaching tool, a process that began even well before its construction. Students have a live model of sustainable living and learning--including an mini-wetlands area in the building's atrium--in which they can measure and manage the performance of its openly accessible systems.

In the words of Kevin Knobloch, President of the Union of Concerned Scientists and keynote speaker at the Garthwaite Center's official opening last month, the building is "a model of sustainability for academic centers across the U.S.." And the school appears to welcome the chance spread the word.

p.s.: I owe thanks to both Jill Burrows and Lelia Elliston of the Cambridge School for turning me on to this happening. The photos are courtesy of CSW as well.

There's good news if you plan to take on a green building project in or around your campus, home, or office. The Green Roundtable is featuring a Green is Affordable showcase at its NEXUS Green Building Resource Center in Boston...date: Thursday, December 6th, from 2 to 6 pm. The event is free, and you can get the details on exhibitors and speakers here.

College Hill is what they call it. It probably had a settler's name once, and a native American one before that. For me, though, it will always be...College Hill.

It stands like a beacon--drawing me, every five years to be precise, to a reunion of souls who come like moths drawn to brightness, and who briefly alight in a transient gathering. But in the short time there, a remarkable thing happens. Squinting a bit harder at nametags than we used to, dusting off memories, sharing a laugh and taking in the fleeting magic of this granfaloon of a community--remember Vonnegut's 'balloon without its skin'?--we then turn back to the here and now. We find ourselves seeing the future just a bit more clearly.

For me, the clarity comes from many conversations, and snippets thereof, about sustainability. With former classmates now in teaching, the arts, business, or at non-profits--representing dozens of different viewpoints. Yet almost all seemed attuned to the issues we face, and aware of the grappling taking place on many fronts with climate change, pollution, waste, and finite resources. Some are active themselves, and others more indirectly affected.

At this year's gathering, some of us were fortunate to mix it up with Bill McKibben, and John Elder, who inspired with their stories--delivered in styles that were miles apart yet somehow connected by a passion for informing and activating. We learned of the subtle but inexorable changes brought by global warming to the declining Vermont maple sugaring industry--far more than just a livelihood for this state. And of the power of a few young minds to rally the masses for the recent Step It Up campaign.

Between encounters and miles of hoofing it back and forth across this hilltop, I came to realize that there's an entirely different kind of renewable energy in the air here. It's the energy that fuels our understanding and fills our spirit, and enables us to work towards solutions--and not become mired in inevitability.

I look out over the surrounding town and farmland, reaching to purple mountains in the west and green ones to the east. I close my eyes briefly to capture the snapshot that will sustain me the next five cycles. I turn to take it all in one final time, and then head off to do my work. Knowing that eConsciousness is alive and well and at this moment moving in a hundred different directions from this place is more than I could have hoped for. Peace.

I'm convinced that 'The Truth' comes in all guises, shapes and forms. All suited to the frame, mindset, and expectations of the receiver of that truth. In fact, it's what makes my work so interesting, challenging, and fun. Sorting through the full spectrum of hard held beliefs--and the truths that help make them so--is a fascinating, though sometimes head-scratching endeavor.

Happily to say, along comes a deep and credible resource to help clear the air. DeSmogBlog, which has actually been around since '05, certainly makes my job easier with its focus on "clearing the PR pollution that clouds the science on climate change". Believe it or not, though, it's crafted by a group of communications professionals who are themselves PR practitioners. But of a decidedly enlightened sort. So, who better to provide us with a rich and revealing DeSmog "Denier Database", loads of informative links and resources, and current climate change stories and tips?

Right off, I want to thank the crew for alerting me to the issue of NewScientist (pictured right here) carrying it's useful Climate Change: Guide for the Perplexed--see it online here. I rank it up there with my previously favorited How to talk to a climate skeptic site.

As always, I encourage you to visit the site and see for yourself. After all, I don't know what's going to trigger your eConsciousness--but being able to cut through the hype a bit more easily will certainly help. Here's to the truth.

Reading the latest over at TerraBlog this morning I was intrigued by a reference to the new wikiHow site and thought I'd check out its sustainability credentials. So, off I went to title-surf this new collaborative writing project: "The How-To Manual That Anyone Can Write or Edit".

First off, I love the concept. Its wikipedia-like, quick look-up nature promises plenty of entertainment along with its helpful content. I especially liked the entry titled 'How to sneak out of our house at night'...brought back some long forgotten memories of childhood escapades. Believe me, you'll find plenty more like it.

Environmentally speaking, the pickings were relatively slim, but generally helpful and sure to grow in number fairly quickly. For instance, I found...

Not overbearing stuff, but easy to search and find. I think this will be a nice complement to the more hard core environmental and sustainability sites, and it's encouraging to see this kind of info getting into the mainstream.

Nick Cobbing is a photojournalist and photographic artist living in the U.K. He works extensively in the Arctic region, and his startling photos have been viewed widely in books, magazines, and on the web. I'm extremely grateful to Nick for allowing me to feature his work in this piece--though I had to promise hime to steer your eyeballs to his web site (which, of course, I had every intention of doing regardless). Thanks, Nick.

Nick's photos, particularly his Ice series, have a very interesting effect on me. On the one hand, they hit me like a sledgehammer. On the other, they subtly engage my eConsciousness. I see beauty as well as very scary imagery. They are images that stick. That make me want to think quietly and scream aloud at the same time. "Stop"

Whether hanging out the door of a 'vintage' helicopter, or standing precariously in a small boat just feet away from a frozen behemoth, Nick has truly gone to great lengths to bring us these photos. Each has its own story, and they are, altogether, both inspiring and informative. Just below is his look at the village of Narwaq, in Western Greenland:

Here's the takeaway from all this for me. Though I can regale you with all the facts and figures and interplay going on to push the climate change agenda forward, nothing I say will likely stick in your mind as well as a picture. So visit Nick's site. Pick one for yourself. And think of it...often.

Every so often I come across something that makes me smack my forehead and say "Jeez, now I get it." And then of course, being the sort of self-critical type I am I invariably follow with "...now why couldn't I have come up with that?"

Well, today's blast comes from Tom Friedman's article in Sunday's New York Times Magazine, headlined The Power of Green. Frankly, I would have preferred he name it 'Of Zingers and green piece' or something like that, but he didn't, and so I had to. "Why?" you ask? Because this piece is so full of zingers--read: powerfully enlightening realities about climate change vs. the globe as we know it. And, it's about a kind of green that not too many of us have been able to articulate yet, or even envision.

I would love for you all to read this piece. In full. But in case that's inconvenient, I'll lift a few of the choicest parts for you. On second thought, do read it, because this article's true mastery lies in how well it's all connected. But go ahead, sample a bit...

"In the world of ideas, to name something is to own it. If you can name an issue, you can own the issue. One thing that always struck me about the term “green” was the degree to which, for so many years, it was defined by its opponents — by the people who wanted to disparage it. And they defined it as “liberal,” “tree-hugging,” “sissy,” “girlie-man,” “unpatriotic,” “vaguely French.”

Well, I want to rename “green.” I want to rename it geostrategic, geoeconomic, capitalistic and patriotic. I want to do that because I think that living, working, designing, manufacturing and projecting America in a green way can be the basis of a new unifying political movement for the 21st century. A redefined, broader and more muscular green ideology is not meant to trump the traditional Republican and Democratic agendas but rather to bridge them when it comes to addressing the three major issues facing every American today: jobs, temperature and terrorism."

"The dirty little secret is that we’re fooling ourselves. We in America talk like we’re already “the greenest generation,” as the business writer Dan Pink once called it. But here’s the really inconvenient truth: We have not even begun to be serious about the costs, the effort and the scale of change that will be required to shift our country, and eventually the world, to a largely emissions-free energy infrastructure over the next 50 years."

"Sometime after 9/11 — an unprovoked mass murder perpetrated by 19 men, 15 of whom were Saudis — green went geostrategic, as Americans started to realize we were financing both sides in the war on terrorism. We were financing the U.S. military with our tax dollars; and we were financing a transformation of Islam, in favor of its most intolerant strand, with our gasoline purchases. How stupid is that?"

"No wonder more Americans have concluded that conserving oil to put less money in the hands of hostile forces is now a geostrategic imperative. President Bush’s refusal to do anything meaningful after 9/11 to reduce our gasoline usage really amounts to a policy of “No Mullah Left Behind.” James Woolsey, the former C.I.A. director, minces no words: “We are funding the rope for the hanging of ourselves.”"

"People change when they have to — not when we tell them to — and falling oil prices make them have to. That is why if we are looking for a Plan B for Iraq — a way of pressing for political reform in the Middle East without going to war again — there is no better tool than bringing down the price of oil. When it comes to fostering democracy among petroauthoritarians, it doesn’t matter whether you’re a neocon or a radical lib. If you’re not also a Geo-Green, you won’t succeed."

"“Think of the climate change issue as a closet, and behind the door are lurking all kinds of monsters — and there’s a long list of them,” Pacala said. “All of our scientific work says the most damaging monsters start to come out from behind that door when you hit the doubling of CO2 levels.” As Bill Collins, who led the development of a model used worldwide for simulating climate change, put it to me: “We’re running an uncontrolled experiment on the only home we have.”"

"To convey the scale involved, Socolow and Pacala have created a pie chart with 15 different wedges. Some wedges represent carbon-free or carbon-diminishing power-generating technologies; other wedges represent efficiency programs that could conserve large amounts of energy and prevent CO2 emissions. They argue that the world needs to deploy any 7 of these 15 wedges, or sufficient amounts of all 15, to have enough conservation, and enough carbon-free energy, to increase the world economy and still avoid the doubling of CO2 in the atmosphere. Each wedge, when phased in over 50 years, would avoid the release of 25 billion tons of carbon, for a total of 175 billion tons of carbon avoided between now and 2056.

Here are seven wedges we could chose from: “Replace 1,400 large coal-fired plants with gas-fired plants; increase the fuel economy of two billion cars from 30 to 60 miles per gallon; add twice today’s nuclear output to displace coal; drive two billion cars on ethanol, using one-sixth of the world’s cropland; increase solar power 700-fold to displace coal; cut electricity use in homes, offices and stores by 25 percent; install carbon capture and sequestration capacity at 800 large coal-fired plants.” And the other eight aren’t any easier. They include halting all cutting and burning of forests, since deforestation causes about 20 percent of the world’s annual CO2 emissions."

"According to Lester Brown, the founder of the Earth Policy Institute, if China keeps growing at 8 percent a year, by 2031 the per-capita income of 1.45 billion Chinese will be the same as America’s in 2004. China currently has only one car for every 100 people, but Brown projects that as it reaches American income levels, if it copies American consumption, it will have three cars for every four people, or 1.1 billion vehicles. The total world fleet today is 800 million vehicles!"

"The only way to stimulate the scale of sustained investment in research and development of non-CO2 emitting power at the China price is if the developed countries, who can afford to do so, force their people to pay the full climate, economic and geopolitical costs of using gasoline and dirty coal. Those countries that have signed the Kyoto Protocol are starting to do that. But America is not."

"President Bush claims he’s protecting American companies by not imposing tough mileage, conservation or clean power standards, but he’s actually helping them lose the race for the next great global industry. Japan has some of the world’s highest gasoline taxes and stringent energy efficiency standards for vehicles — and it has the world’s most profitable and innovative car company, Toyota. That’s no accident."

"Being serious starts with reframing the whole issue — helping Americans understand, as the Carnegie Fellow David Rothkopf puts it, “that we’re not ‘post-Cold War’ anymore — we’re pre-something totally new.” I’d say we’re in the “pre-climate war era.” Unless we create a more carbon-free world, we will not preserve the free world. Intensifying climate change, energy wars and petroauthoritarianism will curtail our life choices and our children’s opportunities every bit as much as Communism once did for half the planet."

...OK, I'm back. If only to say, "I'm sorry NY Times and Mr. Friedman for lifting so much of your stuff--but it's got to get out there. I hope you'll understand."

Thanks for reading this far, and by the way...don't forget about Earth Day this coming weekend. If I'm able, I'll put up a few pointers before it's here. But meanwhile, go find something you can do to make a little noise about it. Your eConsciousness will definitely be happy you did.

Sometimes it seems there's a new report every day. I don't know about you, but it's hard to keep up. Especially if you feel compelled to go beyond the headlines, check a few facts, and see what the opposition is coming up with to diss the findings.

There's one thing that helps me put it into perspective--and perspective is what keeps me from feeling it's all spiraling out of control. I try to make connections. Try to take it from the abstract to the specific. From the global to where I live. Here, give it a try and follow the thread...

Global assessment update from the IPCC-we really are in for it

Just last week, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change issued its summary assessment on climate change impacts--this following its February report on the physical evidence for human-caused climate change, and preceding its coming report on solutions. Evidence is clearly mounting that what we're seeing happening is real, is anthropogenic in nature, and will challenge us beyond our ability to adapt--especially in the more vulnerable areas of the globe. The IPCC points to "severe impacts" even under moderate warming scenarios.

Just a quick reading of the report, or this summary compiled by the Pew Center on Global Climate Change, has to get you wondering how to possibly deal with a problem of this magnitude. Eileen Claussen, President of the aforenamed organization put it on the line in a statement issued after the IPCC assessment:

"This week began with a landmark decision by the US Supreme Court and ended with the release of the IPCC's 4th Assessment on climate change impacts. Following the Supreme Court's decision, it's clear that EPA has the authority – and should -- regulate CO2, and the IPCC report delivered the strongest statement to date on the consequences of climate change. Taken together with increasing calls from CEOs, states, and the public, the message is loud and clear: Read our lips - We need mandatory climate policy in the United States."

So, what's the point of all this in my example? First of all, we really are in for it. And secondly, can we follow a thread from this global bucket of concerns to something we can relate to here at home?

U.S. PIRG--the National picture, and State action

For me, at least, there is an answer, and it's found in yet another report. This time, it focuses on the U.S. and comes to us in the form of this month's release of The Carbon Boom: State and National Trends in Carbon Dioxide Emissions Since 1990, by the U.S. PIRG Educational Fund. It zeros in on fossil fuel consumption data from the Department of Energy from 1990 to 2004, citing the still rising levels of carbon dioxide pollution nation wide, and the roles of the electric power and transportation sectors in this increase.

So where's the good news? It turns out that at a state level, we're seeing signs that the trend could somehow reverse. Governors of Arizona, California, New Mexico, Oregon, and Washington announced the Western Climate Action Initiative. Nine eastern states have adopted California's clean cars program, and eight have signed on to the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative to cap and reduce emissions. And C02 emissions for the period actually decreased in two northeast states, one being Massachusetts. Clearly there's a tremendous amount of work to do, but seeing any success is cause for a bit of optimism.

The New England Outlook

Now, let's follow the thread a bit further, and expose ourselves to another dose of reality: a report from the Northeast Climate Impacts Assessment and the Union of Concerned Scientists. This one brings it home for those of us living in an area already used to change--of the "If you don't like the weather, wait five minutes" variety--but certainly not the kind forecast here.

The study, titled Climate Change in the U.S. Northeast looks at two scenarios, one in which we take a path towards lower emissions and the other where we remain on our "highly fossil fuel-intensive economic growth" path. The thing that gets me is that the die is already cast, and "Under either emissions scenario, the Northeast of the future will be a tangibly different place." Too bad...I kind of like it the way it is.

But it sounds as if we do have some choice in the matter. Here, help me pick...

A. End of century temperature rises of 5 to 7.5 degrees F in winter and 3 to 7 degrees F in summer?
B. Or, winters warmer by 8 to 12 degrees F and summers by 6 to 14 degrees?

A. An average of only 30 days over 90 degrees F (vs. 10 to 15 days historically)?
B. Or, as many as 60 days over 90 degrees each summer?

I'll stop here, but you can continue playing the game by reading the report. Suffice it to say that I'm appreciative of the heads up, and pretty darned hopeful we will rally to do something about it.

Boston--the cities take charge

Like other city mayors who see the need to take matters into their own hands at a local level, Boston's Thomas Menino recognizes that global warming "calls our attention to the future of the world that our children will inherit...and if we don't take action now, we could face severe consequences." This is part of his motivation behind a just announced program to increase the efficiencies and reduce emissions in the city. Under his new plan, city vehicle fleets and government buildings would steeply reduce GHG emissions to 80% below 1990 levels by the year 2050. A dedicated task force will also address incentives to business and residents in the private sector to join in the effort.

Thankfully, leaders at the city level get it, and real change is taking shape.

Where does the thread go next?

The logical next step is that the thread extends towards you. Grab it and see what a difference it can make. If you develop the passion for change, you'll find yourself unable to walk the halls without finding something to pick up and direct towards the recycle bin. Or leave a room without flicking the light switch off.

You'll find yoursef thinking about how to minimize your driving. Consolidate errands. And get your business to think and act green. You'll join a community climate group. Or write your city, state, and national representatives. Maybe you'll even read a report!

No matter what you do do, just start. And know that when your eConsciousness connects with others the result can be very, very powerful.

With a little bit of help, I think we can all remember that turning point in Macbeth when Burnham Wood to Dunsinane Hill did come. Well, that was then, and this is now. And now, the woods appear to be moving-- for real.

I was alerted by a post on The Cottage Life that quite significant changes have been documented in our hardiness zones and, indeed--our woods are on the move. Thus began a websploration revealing fascinating maps, facts, and opportunities to make a difference. Stick with me and I'll explain.

Consistent with observations of global warming, the U.S. hardiness zones reported every 10 years by the National Arbor Day Foundation (based on data from NOAA, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration) are shifting northward. Ten different temperature zones have been established to help people select the right trees to plant in their area, and the latest update shows an undeniable warming. As the maps below show, significant portions of many states have shifted 1 zone, and some have shifted 2 zones, from 1996 to 2006. There's even a quick animation showing the changes.

Should this be of concern? I certainly think so, as it represents a tangible manifestation of climate change that will, in coming years, affect us all.

Can we do anything about it? The answer, again, is yes. According to the Arbor Day Foundation, proactive planting of trees is a way for most everyone to help counteract global warming. Think about some of the benefits trees provide (see the NADF's press release):

- A single tree can remove more than a ton of CO2 over its lifetime.
- Shade provided by a healthy tree provides a cooling effect equal to 10 room-size air conditioners operating 20 hours per day.
- Trees reduce the 'heat island' effect in urban areas.
- They can also slow cold winter winds, thus reducing the need for winter heating.

What you can do...

For starters, you can visit the web site of the National Arbor Day Foundation. You'll find plenty of helpful information, delivered in a very organized way. There's a learning section with education for all ages, tree identification guides, and care tips. There's a shopping section, with everything from trees themselves, to books, memberships, and gift ideas. And also a get involved section, with ways to join the Foundation, get free trees, investigate corporate partnerships, and plan your own Arbor Day 2007 celebration.

Arbor Day 2007 is this month!

Not coincidentally, my websploration led right to kickoff site for Arbor Day 2007, which is coming up later this month on April 27th (most states celebrate on or around this day...check yours here). Everything you'd want to know about the history, activities, celebrations, awards, classroom events, and--naturally--tree planting events surrounding this day appears to be there.

One thing that jumped out at me was a great selection of free e-cards that you can send to alert your friends to the issues and opportunities that can come from connecting their eConsiousness with one of our greatest natural resources. Trees.

The bottom line to all this? There will certainly be some among us--Macbeth afficionados included--who claim that woods and temperature zones have shifted throughout the millennia, and will argue against a global warming cause. Well, I would argue that I'm not going to take any chances, and I'll be planting my part of the solution this Arbor day. How about you?

If you were somehow under the impression that theunlikelyactivist could sort it all out for you, I'm sorry to disappoint. Actually, resisting the temptation to think that my sustainability quest endowed me with more answers than questions is especially easy this time around. This is, as my 4th grade daughter likes to say, "A toughie."

The question boils down to this. How do you feel about the use of technology--of the bio sort in this case--to help 'pro-adaptively' (I made that up) fight the effects of climate change? I don't pose this to rile up the anti-GMO crowd. Or, for that matter, the biotech enthusiasts among us. In fact, I think it's a question that transcends the heretofore traditional pro and con discussion. It's less about bio-manipulation for arguably indulgent purposes, and more about the use of our growing mastery to enable perhaps millions to survive increasingly deteriorating conditions.

If I'm sure of anything, it's that this post is by now most likely as clear as mud to you. Perhaps the following will help. Just take a minute to click below and listen to the two short audio pieces from NPR's Marketplace that brought this all to light for me.

I don't know about you, but I have a collection of little sandwich bags. Inside of which are my stash of moss, striated pebbles and rocks, shells, anthropomorphic pieces of driftwood, a dried alpine flower or two. From places like Rockport, Moonstone Beach, Mount Lincoln, Gimmelwald, and a lonely outcrop near Hudson Bay.

I don't know about you, but I hold these pieces and hear the wind, feel the warmth, and see the vista. I can do that because when I took them, I stopped to remember. And the memories stuck.

I don't know about you, but I count on these little gifts. They test the imagination, and it is still there. They tease the senses, which still respond. This nature we bring home can take us further and faster than even the biggest bundle of frequent flyer miles.

At times, I think I've got all I really need in those baggies.

Now, I didn't really know her well--to be truthful, I didn't know her at all-- but I suspect Rachel Carson had her collection too. But she shared it. And fought for it...like far too few in her time. I'm sorry I missed her. Today, though, I learned that it's possible to connect with her through the wonderful spoken words of the actress, Kaiulani Lee, who brings Rachel Carson to life in her acclaimed readings from Sense of Wonder. But, here, take a listen for yourself...

I'd like to give thanks to Ellie Goldberg, who I just met this weekend, for introducing me to her blog dedicated to Rachel Carson. To Steve Curwood and the folks at Living on Earth, who brough us this audio story. And to Ms. Lee for her sensitive and moving rendition.

I don't know about you, but I think there's no baggie anywhere that could contain the power of that marvelous pioneer of a woman named Rachel. But even without it, she sure does bring it home.

Clearly when we're sometimes in a funk and feeling hopeless and are running out of steam and all that--well, we simply need to be reminded how dismal things really could be.

I write this mainly for newcomers to the scene, or the recently eConsciously-activated as I like to call them. Mainly because I believe in the power of new-found committment, and because those who find themselves so enabled ought to appreciate what it means to have a clean slate and fresh optimism.

A sustainability network-mate of mine, who's been at this for a long time and lives in the U.K., recently circulated this note around, and I'd like to share it with you. Discouraging as it may appear, I say "the reinforcements are here". And with the groundswell of awareness, understanding, and action we're now seeing, there's good reason for hope. But read ahead and see for yourself...

"Here in the UK, I am absolutely & unshakably convinced that in matters such as this, our people will only respond (in the numbers required) if their government takes some kind of a lead: In other words the well known " It can't be important because the government isn't doing anything about it" scenario. People these days (in the UK at least) actually want to believe that politicians are liars and cheats, so when stories emerge in the media like this latest one, their fears appear to be confirmed. I see this from both sides as I work on a Parliamentary Climate Change Group and deal with these politicians regularly. The problem is one of conflicting agendas, & there is so much conflict in both the main political parties right now that they just go around in circles. We are currently working on a Climate Change Bill for example, which is shaping up to be as effective as a chocolate teapot . . . .
I'm not usually negative - I would not have survived thirty years in this business if I was not an optimist, but right now, to be absolutely honest I think that we are losing the plot with climate change."

First off, though...a bit more on offsets, a subject that's not going away any time soon, and will only get more controversial as it grows. Controversial? Absolutely. I already touched on in the post below, plus an earlier one on the ABCs of Carbon Offsets. To some, it's outrageous that anyone would exploit our urgent need to reduce carbon dioxide as a business opportunity. To others, it's a critical step to take, no matter what, as we move towards more regulated approaches to reducing emissions.

Take your pick, but either way, you'll find reassuring--and in my opinion, polarizing--press on both sides. Which, to me is part of the problem. I know it sells, but what makes for good headlines isn't often good communication. Communication, I mean, in the sense that it informs.

You see, I believe that people are smart. And that they will make better decisions (and take meaningful action) when given a chance to make informed decisions--rather than being blasted with offsetting (pun intended) hype. And to that end, I wanted to share an article that appeared today on USAToday.com. While I find the headline a bit off-putting, the article has been well researched and would qualify, to me at least, as good information and good communication. Read it with an open mind, and it should give your eConsciousness a kick.

Now, on to cheating.

When I first came across this, I thought it was pretty clever. Then I thought...oh no, this will sucker a lot of people in to become opponents of that which it parodies. But then I thought some more, and I'll go back to what I said a moment ago: people are smart. So what first appears to be smart humor with a heavy message turns out to be, well...just smart humor. For me, it backfires on the heavy message part.

But now that I've totally confused you, see for yourself. Visit the very amusing CheatNeutral.com. Hats off, guys, but offsetting still comes up the winner in the real world.

Just a few short weeks ago I touched on carbon offsets. In piece entitled The ABCs of Carbon Offsets I pitched them as an imperfect, yet viable way to take responsibility for the emissions we create despite efforts to curb our polluting activities.

I like that word: responsibility. And I especially like it as relates to offsets. I believe it determines, in large part, the true outcome and benefit of any given offset program. And, as we're finding, offsets are quite responsible in their intent--most of the time. They can also be otherwise.

I write today to shine the spotlight on the critical side of the balance sheet. I want to bring your attention to issues raised by those who stake out the position that 'pollution trading'--a good choice of words from a framing point of view--is, in balance, creating more harm than good. That offset programs and participants exploit the poor (in developing countries and regions), create a massive profit center for industry, and let the most eggregious corporate polluters off the hook. Here's some of what is said:

"Offsets place disproportionate emphasis on individual lifestyles and carbon footprints, distracting attention from the wider, systemic changes and collective political action that needs to be taken to tackle climate change." (From the non-profit Carbon Trade Watch in a piece promoting a new report called The Carbon Neutral Myth)

"Some types of carbon-offset initiatives may actually slow the changes aimed at coping with global warming by prolonging consumers' dependence on oil, coal, and gas, and encouraging them to take more short-haul flights and drive bigger cars than they would otherwise have done." (From a 2.20.07 article in the NY Times entitled Guilt-Free Pollution. Or Is It?)

"Some carbon-offset firms have begun to acknowledge that certain investments like tree-planting may be ineffective, and they are shifting their focus to what they say is reliable activity, like wind turbines, cleaner burning stoves, or buying up credits that otherwise would allow companies to pollute." (From the same NY Times article)

"Many environmentalists and indigenous communities around the world fear that use of sinks will have a negligible impact on reducing global warming while having an enormous impact on people worldwide as poor countries, desperate to earn money to pay back debts, look to selling their lands and forests for the carbon markets." (From the Carbon Trade Watch web site discussion of carbon sinks for sequestering carbon dioxide emissions)

Bottom line, there are truths in the criticism. And though I, and many others, promote their use, carbon offsets can be exploited, can have negative impacts, and can distract. I urge you to learn from the objections and be a smarter, more informed buyer. Very little in this sustainability challenge is clear cut, but responsible choices and responsible actions will be clear to those who follow their eConsciousness and do their homework.

Remember, too--and here, proponents and opponents both agree--our personal and collective efforts to reduce emissions when and wherever possible are first and foremost.

Greetings. I want to openly thank TypePad for selecting this as a Featured Blog--and to welcome those of you who are clicking in anew.

I couldn't believe the response that this has generated, so thank you all for paying attention. But what's really most rewarding is the thought of spreading an understanding of Sustainability further and wider. So, if you look around this site, you'll find places to get grounded in what it's all about--see About and eConsciousness--along with a string of posts to put you in the mood, rile you up, educate you, and on occasion, entertain.

As I say over and over again, it's all about sparking your eConsciousness and seeing where and how you fit in the creation of a more sustainable existence--for our planet, and for those of us able to enjoy it now, as well as the world's children.

Assuming you didn't get here totally by accident, maybe you've decided it's time to really learn something about sustainability. Maybe sites like this have piqued your interest and made you want to find out where you could take a course, meet with other like-minded people, or--as in my case--actually go back to school. Perhaps you're interested in the bigger picture, as in...what is the state of sustainability education in our schools, neighborhoods, civic centers, or houses of worship?

OK...so, in the spirit that lies at the core of theunlikelyactivist.com, I'll take a whack at it. Here's my plan. I'll start with an overview--a survey, if you will--with a handful of jumping off points. As time goes on, I'll try to flesh it out in more detail (this is where readers' feedback will really help out, too).

I'll also say that I'm going into this intending to paint a picture of interdependence. While I fully expect to find many and disparate education 'fiefdoms', sustainability is not, as I pointed out in a previous post, a specialized sport. I can't imaging learning about it in one quarter without knowing what's going on in another. Indeed, I hope to deliver something of interest wherever your need to learn finds you today--in business, at home, serving the public, in school, on a spiritual quest...or whatever.

Enough talk.

I have to start with colleges and universities. Why? Because that's where the people who will make a difference today and tomorrow are getting smart. If you're an undergrad, graduate student, or lifelong learner, it's where you'll find out how you can make your most immediate impact. For degree programs, certificates, continuing education, fellowships, and more, the choices are impressive. And you can learn full-time, as a day or evening student, or on-line. Here, take a quick tour...

I hate to stop, because there are more. Forgive me for those I've left out (and please send me your comments about them). But now you have no excuse for thinking about how you can connect sustainable learning with your eConsciousness. Go for it.

How else do we learn? Books. Primary schools. Foundations and non-profits. Business consultants. Governmental agencies. Private/public coalitions. There's lots of ground to cover, but one thing is clear: this is here, and it's not going away. Despite what you read in the headlines that may make a sustainable future look very unlikely, there really is a new generation preparing to take the reins.

So, come back again, and keep an eye out for my next installment--on sustainability education in the K-12 world. Ciao.

While the world keeps spinning around you, there's nothing like slipping on the noise cancelling earphones and experiencing something the way we too rarely do today. In a sense, I feel like I discovered a place analagous to this--right in the middle of the bustling Downtown Crossing area of Boston.

Billed as the first, and one of a kind, the new NEXUS Green Building Resource Center, even though it's only in its first weeks of existence as a full immersion green building experience, is that place. And from what I saw and heard there, I'm already hopeful that others will pop up around the country. We need places to where we can see, feel, experience and...think green. By 'we' I don't mean only professionals, but rather anyone remotely interested in saving money, lightening their load on the planet, and investing their eConsciousness in a design-related project. Large or small.

So what is NEXUS, exactly? It's a bright, open space eight floors up that welcomes you with a genuinely friendly "Hi. Feel free to walk around and explore...coffee's over there...or, would you like a quick tour first?" Take the tour. What you'll see is a generous Showroom of green technologies, products, and services (I don't know where else you can see and touch all this stuff in one place). A Resource Lounge, where you can pick up and leaf through a wide spectrum of books, CDs, reports, and magazines on sustainable design and construction--and lots more. An e-Lounge, set up for quick access to Nexus' e-Directory and on line resources. A Sample Library, where you can get your hands on, and compare the latest in sustainable materials. An Event Venue, where meetings, networking events, and training sessions can be hosted.

Perhaps best of all, though, is that NEXUS is staffed by experts, who's primary job seems to be to inform, rather than sell you anything. This became evident to me as I turned a corner towards the back of the showroom, expecting the end of my tour, and saw instead the opening to the offices of the Green Roundtable. The GRT, as it's known in the 'trade', is the non-profit organization behind the NEXUS project, and is itself a gold mine of knowledge and resources for the architects, builders, communities, businesses, and individuals it serves.

From green building 'Boot Camp' to talks, workshops, and presentations on subjects like Tips for Home Renovation, Green Building for Kids, and Green Office Systems for Energy and Lighting, NEXUS is the definitely the place to get smart, and get inspired.

I had a chance to speak with Barbra Batshalom, the GRT's Executive Director during my drop in (shows you how 'open' the place is), and I sensed the far-reaching vision behind NEXUS. Now, I could be wrong, but next time you're looking to see what a jolt of green energy might do to your outlook, stop by...and see for yourself.

Note: as of this writing, the NEXUS web site is under construction...but they've conveniently put up lots of info on a section of the GRT site. Thanks, guys.

This morning's email brought me the latest update from carbon offset firm, TerraPass--and along with it, some provocative thoughts about the just-released IPCC Report on global climate change. As if the report itself weren't sobering enough, we're reminded in the TerraPass piece that the collective conclusions of the thousands of scientists and reviewers who put the report together paint a rather conservative picture of the likely impacts of global warming.

This seems due to the fact that many scientific viewpoints were 'homogenized' to pull the overall report together. As well, in true scientific fashion, the lack of thorough understanding of several (potentially very significant) ongoing 'ice flow' phenomena prevented those scenarios from being included. In any event, this is a very interesting writeup--take a minute to check it out.

The report's impact: action or inaction?

The TerraPass post also prompted a comment string that I felt I had to weigh in on as well. A commenter observed as to how often 'inaction' is based on a lack of 'certainty' about things like the impact of climate change--note, the IPCC report claims a 90%+ likelihood that its predicted outcomes will happen.

It's ironic, I observed in my comments (and will repeat again here), that the models and ‘predictability’ that seem to be readily accepted in deciding other no less significant issues—like, say, going to war--are certainly no better. Would any of you deny that critical decisions are made day in and day out on the basis of much less outcome certitude than the IPCC report gives us?

This seems clearly a case of the natural skepticism of science working against itself, and it raises some very intriguing communication challenges for those who can help put things in their proper perspective. And guess what? That's exactly what I've set out to do in this eConsciousness raising--and issues straightening out--channel. So stay tuned. There's lots more interesting stuff to come, I'm sure.

P.S.: Interesting...just to show you how the communications battle is being waged, here's a snippet from a recent analysis of the IPCC report's conclusions:

"An independent review of the latest United Nations report on climate change shows that the scientific evidence about global warming remains uncertain and provides no basis for alarmism."

This comes from the Canadian Fraser Institute, which definitely has an agenda of their own. Their web site and this Wikipedia piece will give you the flavor. Now, who said this wasn't going to be confusing?

As you know, today the U.N.'s long awaited report from International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) was issued (in Paris). Its assessment, reflecting the research of over 2,500 scientists from 113 countries, is pretty sobering, and concludes that it's a virtual slam dunk (actually, they were a bit more circumspect) that man-made emissions of greenhouse gases are the culprit. Some may still argue that point, but I wonder who's gonna listen.

How's this for hard reality?...

"Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, as is now evident from observations of increases in global average air and ocean temperatures, widespread melting of snow and ice, and rising global mean sea level."

Add this to tidbits like...

"...the average temperature of the global ocean has incresed to depths of at least 3000m..."

"At continental, regional, and ocean based scales, numerous long-term changes in climate have been observed."

"The last time the polar regions were significantly warmer than present for an extended period (about 125,000 years ago), reductions in polar ice volume led to 4 to 6 meters of sea level rise."

"Anthropogenic warming and sea level rise would continue for centuries due to the timescales associated with climate processes and feedbacks, even if greenhouse gas concentrations were to be stabilized."

What have we wrought?

Next topic: Wedges.

In the wake of this report, you will probably hearing a lot of talk about wedges. Climate "stabilization wedges". These are the brainchild of two Princeton University professors who profess (that's what they do, right?) that it's still possible to avoid climate catastrophe by applying the right set of 'wedges' from our toolbox of energy technologies, thereby flattening the rate of emissions growth asap, and holding it there for the next 50 years. This is put in perspective much better than I could, in a feature on the wonderfully informative Climate Repair web site.

If you relate to this concept--and I believe most of you will--then you'll have to check out the Stabilization Wedges Game. Princeton's Environmental Institute has created a fully downloadable version to allow you to learn, and challenge yourself to take on some of the tough decisions that wedging our way to a cure would take. It looks like a great education tool.

Last topic: $10,000.

Now, if you're a scientist, or know of one, this should catch your attention. A story today in the U.K.'s Guardian Unlimited reported that the American Enterprise Institute (AEI), a think tank with "close links to the Bush administration" has offered scientists $10,000 each "for articles that emphasize the shortcomings of a report from the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change." You know what report that's referring to, right? But did you know who's engaged AEI to undertake this campaign to undermine the study? I'll give you a hint...it's a very big oil company who's actions of late could well be seen as XX rated.

I'll leave you to mull that over and take a look at the game. Let me know how it goes.

My conversations lately have been turning more and more to sustainability, and more often than not lead to the "So exactly what can we do?" question. This eventually brings us to some discussion of carbon offsets, the topic of this post, and one of the more head-scratching issues on the list. Indeed, much has been written about these potentially beneficial little commodities--but I sometimes wonder how much has actually been communicated?

So I thought I'd take a stab at it--with both a top level view and some jumping off points in case you want to dig deeper. It begins with the acceptance that we all emit carbon dioxide, whether we want to or not, and no matter how hard we work at being green. Remember...

- We emit a full ton of CO2 when we drive about 6,000 miles in our hybrid, or a mere 1,350 miles in our large SUV.

- We emit roughly same amount when we fly 2,000 miles in a plane

- The average American's direct emissions from household energy and transportation amounts to about 10 tons per person.

And after we've put the solar panels on the roof, installed the energy efficient appliances, and tried to conserve our way to salvation, we still have to account for the emissions generated to produce the food we eat and the clothes we wear. There is simply no way to avoid being guilty.

There is, however, a way to take responsibility.

Here's where offsets come in. Offsets allow us to contribute to a reduction of emissions, by helping fund new and ongoing energy efficiency, renewable energy generation (typically from solar, methane, or wind sources), or carbon sequestration projects. (The latter refers to the removal and storage of CO2 from the atmosphere...think trees). More specifically, for every ton of carbon dioxide you inevitably still create, you can eliminate some or all of it through a net reduction you support elsewhere. In an ideal sense, if you were to thus offset all the emissions that you couldn't eliminate through lifestyle changes, you would be able to claim that you had attained the enviable state of zero carbon footprint, or carbon neutrality.

Offsetting CO2 works for individuals (the retail scale), corporations, and institutions. It allows for the offsetting of emissions from manfacturing, transportation, travel, fossil fuel based energy generation, travel, and simple household running. It is a very hot topic in the sustainability arena and, as I hope you will see, a necessity in turning our greenhouse gas imbalance around.

But it is not a silver bullet.

I think green business guru, Joel Makower, sums it up memorably when he writes "...buying offsets for an energy-wasteful home or business and calling it environmentally responsible is akin to buying a Diet Coke to go with your double bacon cheeseburger -- and calling it a weight-loss program. Efficiency (and calorie reduction!) comes first." You said it. Offsets do not preclude conservation and minimization of your emissions per se. Nor do they come first.

In efforts to be smart about emissions within your sphere of control (and this applies equally to businesses as well as individuals), you begin with an assessment of the amount of CO2 you generate--known as your carbon footprint--and address the waste and inefficiencies you can directly. Then comes the time to look at those remaining, and for now unavoidable tons of carbon you emit, and look for offset opportunities.

And you won't have to look far. There are dozens of companies and non-profit organizations who provide easy ways to calculate your footprint, and will offer offsets for any budget, and across a range of projects (see links below). For less than $100, the average American can offset their annual personal footprint--as reported in A Consumer's Guide to Retail Carbon Offset Providers, issued in late 2006 by the nonprofit Clean Air-Cool Planet.There are numerous organizations and web sites that will take you step by step through the process. Here, for example, is one helpful overview provided by the David Suzuki Foundation.

Offsets do raise issues.

Somewhere along the line, your faith will be shaken. Perhaps it will happen when you hear that "Carbon offsets are just like paying for your right to pollute." Or, "You're just paying off your guilt." And you will read that offsets are "counterproductive" and distract from the essential reductions we need to see in the use of fossil fuels. But if you venture into offsets after taking a good, hard look at the actions you can take to reduce your footprint in the first place--eliminate unneccesary trips, switch your lights, buy a hybrid, etc.--you'll be doing a good thing. As for the guilt feelings, I believe that your new and more sustainable practices will speak for themselves.

The experts, too, point out a number of concerns about offsets, which do suggest that we are still in a 'buyer beware' mode. After all, at this point in time, offsets are voluntary, and are not formally regulated, certified, or monitored. This article, from the January 10th Christian Science Monitor gives a nice overview.

And then there is the issue of additionality, namely, did your offset contribution fund emission reductions beyond those that were already in place (in a business-as-usual sense)? This, in fact, was one of the questions that prompted the comprehensive, independent study and the report mentioned above.

Further concerns are evident in debates about which categories of offsets are most effective, notably in the finding that carbon sequestration through reforestation may have significant downsides--i.e., the release of large amounts of carbon from the soil during planting.

The picture keeps changing...stay tuned.

Clearly, carbon offsets are not a panacea. But the bottom line message is clear: offsets today represent one of the most viable mechanisms for taking responsibility--personal as well as corporate--for one's contribution to global warming. They are increasingly easy to access, relatively economical, and very useful in helping the shift away from fossil fuel consumption. Just remember--don't offset what you can conserve or otherwise reduce. Do them both, and your eConsciousness meter will go up a notch or two. Guaranteed.

Even as I'm writing this, the world of offsets is changing. Here's a sampling of what's to come...

Joel Makower reports in climatebiz.com that U.K. retail giant Marks & Spencer announced a plan that will lead to the company becoming carbon neutral by 2012. That DHL is planning to become the first company to offer carbon-neutral delivery. And that Dell Computer launched a carbon initiative that plants trees to allow customers to offset the carbon impact of using their computers.

Carbon offset provider TerraPass just announced a partnership with Sam's Club and manufacturer Karcher to bundle offsets with the company's pressure washer product--a first for TerraPass.

And another offset provider, ClimateSure, has introduced the first insurance product that comes with carbon offsets built in--at no higher cost to consumers than traditional plans.

Interesting and helpful links...

Carbon footprint calculators--on line and very quick and simple to use, for household as well as travel calculations. Also great for giving the gift of offsets to you friends:

All of a sudden I feel like I'm going out on a limb...but here goes. I suspect some of you may have questions. And although I'm no climate expert, I'll do my best to answer them or direct you to places where you can find clarity. So step up, and log yours by clicking on 'Comments' below. It's quick. It's easy. And it's anonymous, if you insist.

One of the beauties of the blogosphere, beyond self-publishing bliss, is that I can reach out to you real fast. I mean real, real fast. No editor. No print schedule. Just drop everything and post.

Which is why I'm writing now. I just happened to catch up with a 1.18.07 Wall Street Journal op/ed piece titled "Will Al Gore Melt?". And while I have no problem with the WSJ per se--I do with the authors of this piece, Flemming Rose and Bjorn Lomborg, the Culture Editor of Jyllands-Posten in Copenhagen, and Professor at the Copenhagen Business School, respectively.

So I have to respond. Why? Because I would hate to see the deceptive spinning of facts regarding Climate Change cast doubt on the overwhelming evidence behind its human origins. I'm not worried about Al Gore's ability to defend himself and counter the 'facts' laid out by Rose and Lomborg. But I am worried about you. When confronted with arguments against An Inconvenient Truth that seem to make sense, what do you say? How far will you sway?

With a little help from my sources (linked and referenced as best I can) here's a little point and counter-point...

First, a point the authors make about the dangers of following Gore's path toward an "environmentally obsessed society"...They write, "If we slowly change our greenhouse gas emissions over the coming century, the U.N. actually estimates that we will live in a warmer but immensely richer world."

Now, I don't know which U.N. report they are referring to (and there are many), but consider the fact that in two weeks, the very same institution's Intragovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) will present an updated, and long awaited 4th Assessment Report, Climate Change 2007--and it is very unlikely that it will support their contention. How can it, with pre-release review already prompting headlines like "UN climate panel to step up warnings on climate" (Reuters), and "Report has 'smoking gun' on climate" (USA Today). Sounds like it's going to be hard to find allusions to a warmer and richer world in this report.

Second, a point intended to convince us that the cooling of some areas of the world are conveniently "ignored" by Gore...they write "He considers Antarctica the canary in the mine, but again doesn't tell the full story. He presents pictures from the 2% of Antarctica that is dramatically warming and ignores the 98% that has largely cooled over the past 35 years."

Gotcha?

At first blush, Rose and Lomborg would appear to have dealt a blow to the unfortunate truths Gore would have us believe...but again, their contention is readily dismissed by the facts. Scientifically, while there are data suggesting that the East Antarctic ice sheet is showing some growth, it is far from conclusive, compared to the mass of data on rapid melting elsewhere. Moreover, there are known ocean currents that act as a buffer to the transport of heat (via warm water from the tropics) to the South Pole--and even if temperatures did warm on the order of, say, 10 degrees Centigrade (shifting from roughly -60 to -50 degrees Centigrade) some increase in ice would be consistent. (There's lots on this, with good backup, on Coby Beck's How to Talk to a Global Warming Skeptic.) Bottom line, it's most important to remember that "a rise in the global mean temperature does not imply universal warming." (RealClimate.org) When you hear otherwise, there's no need to back off of global warming.

I think you get the gist of it. So beware: a few well placed spokespeople, or articles, or studies can disproportionately color (colour, for my friends at futerra) an otherwise overwhelming body of truth. Especially so when the truths are supported in a language--namely, science--which for most of us is not a native tongue. But you don't have to get a degree, memorize the book, or otherwise become an expert. You do have to take what you read and hear, and think before being moved off course. You do have to let science and scientists do what they do best--that is, challenge, and challenge, and challenge again their assumptions--and recognize when those challenges are being exploited.

And, you do have to trust your eConsiousness. Climate change is far too broad in its impact and implications to be a slam dunk in anyone's book. If you're engaged at your core, you will find the true story line, and future op/eds will be...well, just that.

P.S.: For any of you who are interested, here's a bit of homework. Can you help counter two additional contentions made in the WSJ piece? If so, please drop a comment here (click 'comments' below) for all to see. I, for one, would like to have the answers in my back pocket.

1. Rose and Lomborg write, after being rebuffed in attempts to interview Gore, "It would have been great to ask him why he only talks about a sea-level rise of 20 feet. In his movie he shows scary sequences of 20-feet flooding Florida, San Francisco, New York, Holland, Calcutta, Beijing and Shanghai. But were realistic levels not dramatic enough? The U.N. climate panel expects only a foot of sea-level rise over this century." (I would definitely like to research this U.N. statement.)

2. Further, they challenge him elsewhere, as in "Mr. Gore says that global warming will increase malaria and highlights Nairobi as his key case. According to him, Nairobi was founded right where it was too cold for malaria to occur. However, with global warming advancing, he tells us that malaria is now appearing in the city. Yet this is quite contrary to the World Health Organization's finding. Today Nairobi is considered free of malaria, but in the 1920's and '30s, when temperatures were lower than today, malaria epidemics occurred regularly." (WHO reports, here we come...)

Somewhere along the line you've probably heard it too. It goes something like this...for every umpteen miles we drive our car, x pounds of carbon are released into the atmosphere. "What?", you say. "Pounds of carbon? Not dropping out of my tailpipe, but rising up into the atmosphere?"

To think about it, it doesn't really make much sense, does it? How can all those tons of carbon stay up there? And how can the stuff that comes out of my tailpipe, which I think of as being a 'gas' (vs. gasoline), actually weigh that much? Which brings me to one notion behind this post. You see, for all the information we're getting nowadays on greenhouse gases--and how they're created, what they're doing up there, and how they can be reduced both on the front and back end of things (through reabsorption by trees, the oceans, etc.)--I worry that it's the little things that can trip us up on the road to eConsciousness. Things like just not getting the concept of--well, how carbon can 'float'.

So before we turn to dietary issues, let's take a minute to defuse this potential stumbling block. It's not even that complicated. The principle is captured in the diagram above (and in the larger, more detailed version you'll see by clicking on the visual below). Numbers aside for the moment, what essentially happens is:

Combustion breaks apart the components of gasoline, namely hydrogen and carbon, and recombines them--the carbon, that is--with oxygen. "So..." Well, here's the important part. Each component has a molecular weight: hydrogen being 1, carbon being 12, and oxygen being 16. So, when the carbon from your gas tank combines with oxygen from the air, you're actually manufacturing CO2--one carbon and two oxygens together, and about three times as heavy as carbon component in the original gasoline.

And off they go. Pounds and pounds of CO2 molecules. Tons and tons as time goes on...at a rate of almost 20 pounds for each gallon of gas you burn. I'll repeat: 20 pounds of the stuff for every gallon you burn! No matter how efficient a car you're driving. Whether for business, for fun, or--heaven forbid--just idling.

So I thank carbon offets guru, Adam Stein of TerraPass, for crunching all the numbers and explaining the science (on his TerraBlog post). Plus visual modeler extraordinaire, Marshall Clemens of Idiagram for helping create the marvelous diagrams shown here. With their help, maybe the point will reach more of you, more effectively. Think about it.

Now, for what a cheeseburger can teach us about CO2...

Fortunately, while we're all trying to get a handle on the basics, we've got folks like Jamais Cascio, who on his Open the Future blog shares insights from his research. And the news isn't great. Intrigued by the question of what the carbon footprint of another typical American staple, the cheeseburger, might be, he came up with some startling factoids. Consider this...

- The average American eats about 150 burgers a year.

- Between a quarter- and a half-kilogram of carbon dioxide are emitted in the production and consumption of one cheeseburger (calculating everything from raising the cattle and making the buns, to the transportation that gets the burger--and us--to the burger joint).

- Over the course of a year, according to Jamais, between 37 and 75 kilograms of carbon emissions result from the average American's cheeseburger habit.

And there's more...like the methane gas that the cattle generate (with about 20x the greenhouse gas effects of CO2), and so on. (You can hear much of this discussed in a fascinating interview with Jamais on TreeHugger Radio). But the message is clear. What we eat, and all the energy required to make it, transport it, and enjoy it contributes significantly to greenhouse gases (GHGs). No wonder it's fueling a skyrocketing interest in growing, buying, and consuming locally. That, though, is a topic for another post, so stay tuned.

By the way, Jamais refers in his piece to a report from Stockholm Unversity and the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology, titled Energy Use in the Food Sector. For those of you interested in some of the fascinating details, check out the PDF here.

Note: If you would like to use the visuals above for web or print purposes, please feel free to do so...but we ask that you 1) attribute the source and 2) inform us where it will appear, which will help us better meet your informational needs. Thanks.

Here's a quickie. From a post on my new favorite sustainability advocates web, called compassnetwork, comes word that Pink Floyd's 'Another Brick in the Wall, Part II' has been masterfully remastered into a real catchy enviro music video. Says something to me about the way we're starting to use all channels of communication to get the word out--especially to a generation with a lot less gray and a lot more energy than I have.

Swedish DJ and producer Eric Prydz's'Proper Education' was released recently, and you can see and hear it here. Coincidentally, I just heard from my undergrad daughter that yet another friend of hers has opted to take up the sustainability cause when she graduates in May. Nice to see that eConsciousness has no age barriers.

Maybe I just like beginning with tongue twisters or mind benders or even invented words, but I can't resist the observation that, when I launched this blog little did I know how little I knew. About the sophistication of both my audience and my fellow travelers in the communications sphere, that is.

I have to hand it to all of you--you make my work easier and more interesting than I had imagined. Being that I have a fascination with how to inform and motivate and inspire people to sustainable awareness and action, I'd like to steer you to a site that really gets it!. It's called futerracom.org (a very clever kind of a .com.org melding, I have to say). But, clever branding aside, this U.K. group plays at the interface between innovative messaging, superb delivery, and lingering impact--to give sustainability real teeth. It's clear to me that, whether you're mom or pop, student or policy maker, Futerra will get you thinking.

If those of you who are statesiders (I looked that up, trust me) think you can work your way through a reasonable dose of U.K. idiom and unfamiliar terms, then click above and take in the whole site. It's worth it. But if you want a shortcut, then go directly to Futerra's quite powerful videos (my favorite is the theatrical 'The Seasons Alter'). Or click through their listing of 100 simple ways to change the world.

So, at the risk of repeating myself, I'll repeat myself: go there, take it in, and reflect. And then check your eConsciousnes meter for me. I think you'll detect some bit of movement.

Thank you to all who took time to respond to the first official theunlikelyactivist.com poll!

Your answers tell me that there's interest in a wide range of information pertaining to eConsciousness and sustainability, for even the lowest ranking category--Issues background--scored well enough to merit inclusion. How-to advice, earned the most mentions as the type of information you would find most helpful, pointing to a desire for practical tips and content ideas.

Here's a summary of the results:

Relevant links: 47.8% picked it as one of the two most helpful categoriesHow-to advice: 52.2% picked it as one of the two most helpful categoriesSuccess stories: 47.8% picked it as one of the two most helpful categoriesIssues background: 30.4% picked it as one of the two most helpful categories

Looking at the categories individually, this is how they ranked in terms of actual number of votes:

How-to advice: received 29.3% of the votesRelevant links: received 26.8% of the votesSuccess stories: received 26.8% of the votesIssues background: received 17.1% of the votes

So much for my being able to focus on one issue or the other, eh? Actually, it's great news, for it gives me a chance to both delve into more detail, and keep the site diverse and interesting. I'll be posting new surveys in the weeks ahead. Stay tuned, and keep letting me know what you think.

Can you remember the thrill of flying in an open cockpit 2-seater, goggles and leather helmet strapped on, and hair tousled by the wind? Or that feeling of awe when your last punishing steps revealed what was over the horizon, and you stood breathless on top of the highest peak in Alaska?

Well…it’s really ok if you don’t. It simply means you’re not Barbara or Bradford Washburn, an amazing couple who’ve racked up adventures that could fill a book. Or several books, as they have.

It was the Washburns that I decided to focus on for my first Remarkable People interview, and their story is fascinating. But before I go on, please indulge me a commercial break. You see, the purpose of this blog is to inspire, and one of the most effective ways to do so is to tell our stories, and hear those of others who are traveling with us. So I intend to bring you, in the words of people like you, the moments that came to define their connection with the world around us, the core of their eConsciousness. I hope what you’ll see is that it happens many different ways. It is sparked by events that simply wash over and through you, or that make barely a ripple. It happens to people we all come to know, and to people we will never know. Each, in their own way, can help ignite the sustainability mindedness, the unlikely activist, in you. So enjoy.

A petite and sprightly 92 years old now, Barbara captivated and charmed me from the first moments of our interview. Especially so when she recounted the days before she and Bradford were married. “Before Brad and I dated, I was a secretary at the Biology Department (at Harvard) and he was directing the Science Museum at the time. Well...I thought Brad was just a crazy mountain climber. I wasn’t impressed.”

Of course, this hit home with me, because I was once sort of a crazy mountain climber myself and took my wife-to-be up the Shawangunks on our very first date, and I realize now she may have shared the same sentiment with Barbara. But I didn’t take Ellen flying, which Bradford did. “He took me up in an open plane, with the flying suit and goggles and leather helmet. We would go into a dive, and I had a good time. I felt like I was Anne Lindbergh”, Barbara recalls. But that was not a true date, though, “because things were much more formal in those days.”

Well, eventually, after agreeing to work with Bradford at the Museum—“he kept pursuing me…he was very aggressive’’—they did unite and began a life of adventure together. The outdoors, especially places remote and unexplored became the basis for Bradford’s work away from Boston (when he wasn’t touring the country giving lectures). Barbara accompanied him on many of these trips. Together they climbed, and mapped, 13,832’ Mt. Hayes in southern Alaska—apparently a much more difficult climb than 20,320’ McKinley itself would prove to be. And there began, in Barbara’s words, “the feeling that getting up high was such a unique experience. Up there you get a feeling of the insignificance of yourself. It wasn’t about any sense of achievement, really.”

Bear in mind that this was back in the late 1940’s, before environmentalism and sustainability were the mantras they are today. Bradford Washburn was ‘in it’ to discover unmapped territory and share it with the world. And he leaves us with a startling body of photographs, maps, and writings that help us less adventurous types see for ourselves the tenuous nature that surrounds us. Seeing the world through his eyes is something you can hardly afford not to do.

Later in their work together, in June of 1947, Barbara and Bradford climbed the iconic Mt. McKinley. They had a family by that time. It was on the top of that remote peak that Barbara remembers a particular moment. “I think I had a funny kind of religious experience on top of Mt. McKinley. The beauty there is overwhelming…like looking out over a vast 3-dimensional map. I walked over to the edge. And I had a vision from my old Sunday school book. I know it was clouds, but I saw God up there, with a white beard. And all I could think to say was: help me get home to see my kids again.”

Of course, she did. And I’d like to believe Barbara found a bit of eConsciousness that day. Grounded in her own life experience. As she and I parted, I asked if she’d like to share one observation she had come to know about nature. And she said…

What would you call the opposite of "The occurrence and development of events by chance in a happy or beneficial way"?

I'd call it serundipity. And I'd define it as finding out the morning after the evening before that you missed the once in a lifetime opportunity to meet your idol, who you'd only dreamed about ever seeing in person. Yep. That's exactly what happened when I discovered over my morning coffee that Dr. David Suzuki, renowned Canadian scientist and sustainability communicator had just been in town to collect the 2006 Bradford Washburn Award at Boston's Museum of Science.

I guess that's what happens when overblog-itis sets in and real life passes you by. Oh well. Better luck next time, eh?

Just when you thought you had global warming figured out, and were lining up your strategy for cutting emissions and greening your life, along comes this news. "Climate change", in the words of Brad Allenby writing in Greenbiz.com, "has never been inevitable, but a matter of values and political choice, a pricepoint issue." Allenby's comments follow recent claims that it may soon be feasible, using known technologies, to remove CO2 directly from the atmosphere--essentially providing the same service as our hard-pressed forests and ecosystems.

Simple translation: we may find ourselves able to go beyond the reduction of new emissions and actually remove existing, historical CO2 from the atmosphere. And the even more far fetched part is that we could conceivably regulate just the amount of this greenhouse gas we want--taking it back to, say, the amount present when the industrial revolution began.

Allenby, however, issues a caution...and I heartily agree. Such a paradigm shift moves climate change from a challenging enough "simply stop what you're doing" mission to an even more globally challenging fix involving the "network of natural, human and built systems that define the world as it is today."

One can only imagine the nature of the push and pull between all parties--from scientists, to environmentalists, politicians, academics, architects, engineers, and industrialists--as such a capability ramps up and begs the question: who's in charge here?

Here's my guess: if you were to list the major issues of our world today--even within the spectrum of sustainability that I focus on here--biodiversity is probably not at, or near the top. After all, there are enough tree huggers out there protecting the habitats of the endangered. There are plenty of 'other' fish in the sea to replace those temporarily in short supply. And with all the reforestation going on, what's to worry about the Amazon?

Unfortunately, it is all too easy to dismiss biodiversity. It seems so 'scientific'. It involves complex relationships within complex systems that are difficult to grasp. And of course, it's not nearly as sexy a topic as melting icecaps and glaciers.

But here's the rub: we remain ignorant about biodiversity and its role in our lives today at our own peril. While we often "feel ourselves to have escaped the limits of nature" (David Suzuki in The Sacred Balance), we have not, and we cannot--even with all the technical prowess we command. Biodiversity does matter. But how?

Here's where my notion of three things you need to know comes in. Three things I know we can all remember. Three things that capture the essential message of biodiversity, but will forgive you from having to memorize species and classifications, or study photosynthesis, or describe the carbon, nitrogen, and decomposition cycles...unless you want to, of course.

1. Remember that nature is cyclical. In natural systems there is no waste. In other words, species biodiversity assures that all waste products from one sub-process are the raw material for other sub-processes. This is important because it reminds us that continuous re-use of the planet's resources--the true natural state--has enabled many millennia of adaptable, robust life. Consider this when our 'civilized' societies choose to release amounts of greenhouse gases far in excess of that which our forests and soils have evolved to absorb.

2. Remember that nature is balanced. For as long as there has been life on Earth, there have been interdependent cycles at work providing essentials like water, oxygen, and nitrogen (needed by all organisms to live). Ecological biodiversity, with its delicately balanced, co-evolved systems and services that we take for granted runs like advanced, precision machinery. Consider this when we choose to despoil or otherwise change the conditions of our natural estuaries or intact forest ecosystems.

3. Remember that nature is resilient. Indeed there has been much change in our physical and biological world over the ages, including 'naturally caused' extinctions. But nature has prevailed, and adapted. Genetic biodiversity, enabling species to cope is behind this survival. Let us consider this when we choose to forego genetically diversified, native crops for those which we breed to be overly specialized, and often turn out to be poor adapters to changes in temperature, sun, and moisture.

So there it is...my overly simple take on biodiversity, though I must credit the likes of David Suzuki (The Sacred Balance) and Paul Hawken (Natural Capitalism) for the facts and inspiration behind it. Use it, if you will, to help choose the things you decide to do. And the things you decide not to do...in your home, your business, at school, with your vote, and with your wallet. I don't know about you, but I don't think we can mess with biodiversity and get away with it for long.

Real quick...you'll see a new feature, a short survey, in the sidebar of this blog. It's for you, and me, to track the pulse of eConsciousness and ultimately make future entries and content more helpful and relevant. So take a few moments to consider, and then answer the question as you see it. We will all be grateful.

The turkey has come and gone. The sandwiches now eaten. The leftovers...soup. But the sentiment lingers.

Pausing for a moment in my efforts to save the planet, I find it useful to be reminded of what we have to be thankful for...and how thank-less are the lives of so, so many who share this space and time with us. This thoughtful video will take you there, too.

Art is an amazing thing. If we open our minds to it, it can move us greatly. And if we let it move us, it can further expand our minds. So it goes for environmental art, or ecoArt, or land art. Some who create and study it, and who know much more about it than I, define such boundaries. But by whatever name you call it, take a little time to get to know it.

With this post, I'm opening a new door for exploring the interconnected world of sustainability. I invite you to see for yourself. And if art in some way fuels your eConsciousness, do share your thoughts with us. A while back, I was awestruck by some photographic images I saw on a web site recommended by a friend. What I saw has to this day inspired me. It's called Forests Forever, and if you visit, make sure to linger amongst the Baobab trees--it's well worth it.

The Green Museum is a fantastic place to start an exploration of art and the environment, all on line. Links to exhibitions and featured artists provide a broad palette of styles, media...and interpretations about our relationship with the natural world. The site is a great resource for books and writings as well, and tools for educators and others who see the place for environmental art in your schools and communities.

As Tricia Watts, art curator and founder of a non-profit organization called ecoartspace observes in the online journal LANDviews, "Who is better equiped than artists--thinking outside the box, employing their creativity and resourcefulness, and a love of beauty--to envision a more sustainable world?" Ecoartspace is the vehicle for bringing us the contributions of these artists, through exhibitions at established museums, and by undertaking various artist/community programs.

Again quoting Tricia Watts, "Ecoartists can be thought of as midwives for the earth, facilitators of environmental education, consultants for environmental restoration and visionaries for transforming ecological communities." Both the LANDviews and ecoartspace sites will connect you with a wealth of fascinating and thought provoking examples.

When I finally had to call it a day and stop following links to artists' sites and showcases, I was overwhelmed by the power of art to grab and engage on such a vital topic as sustainability. I felt as though I better understood something very basic, and that art, rooted in the expressions of our early cave dwelling ancestors, is an essential part of our creating a healthy relationship with our planet.

Been caught flat footed on global warming lately? Have the skeptics been getting the better of you? Don't panic.

Many thanks to a bright fellow named Coby Beck for his tremendous contribution to ending stalemates like the one above. First, he's compiled a very long list of the questions and issues that skeptics raise about Global Warming. Then he's provided succinct answers, backed with enough of the science that it can still be understood by non-scientists. He's also provided links off the answers for deeper exploration. And, finally, he's organized them all by category so we can find our way around easily.

This fantastic material is all just a click away. You'll find it on Coby's blog, A Few Things Ill Considered, and also on the Gristmill, to which Coby is a contributor. Take your pick, but do click. Now.

As any of us who've been caught fumbling when trying to make headway with a diehard skeptic, this will give you comfort...and may even help win a convert or two along the way.

I don't know about you, but in the midst of all the noise and advocating and all...I need to take a break.

And being a visual person, that usually means finding a way to get out and stare at the horizon, the sweep of the ocean, or even just the amazing painting-like bark of our Stewartia tree. Something to remind myself of that to which we're connected.

But yesterday, as if by magic, I followed a link trail that eventually led me to this.

Now, I won't go on philosophizing here, but suffice it to say that looking at our planet from a scale that makes us all but invisible gives me a combination of thrills, and chills. I'm awed by the unspeakable beauty that appears in the patterns and colors of Earth from space. So natural. So immutable. But it comes with a bittersweet taste, a reminder that even from these distances can we tell that all is not well.

Something in me wants to cry: don't touch the art.

p.s. Thanks to USAToday.com for the tip. The photo above appears courtesy of the Smithsonian, via AP.

I may have my own political persuasion, but I've chosen not to make it a top item in this blog. Why? Because I want Republicans too (oops, I gave it away) to feel comfortable coming here for information.

While current politics prevail, it is clearly Democrats who are most visibly dealing with the environmental agenda in its many facets. And so, the enthusiasm which greeted Tuesday's election results is certainly merited. An email I got from Carl Pope, Executive Director of the Sierra Club pointed with obvious satisfaction to victories by numerous green Democrats over their non-enlightened, or even obstructionist opponents. Under current circumstances I'm thrilled with the outcome.

But consider this (and I paraphrase from a stirring speech given by Deval Patrick following his election as the new Governor of Massachusetts). The job of the newly elected is not to govern for the winners...but to govern for all. On the environment and sustainability, this is especially relevant, because if we don't effectively engage people across political lines, we will all be losers eventually. Democrats alone will not get the job done. If we cannot motivate people of all persuasions to understand that a healthy and balanced planet is the concern of everyone, then broad scale success will never be possible.

To that end, I invite readers from all persuasions to open your minds to the common ground we all stand on. Realize that within your political frame there exists room for respecting and tending this finite planet. And only by so doing can we ever all win.

The Republican Party must learn from Tuesday's election results by focusing on urgent national problems and rediscovering traditional conservative stewardship.

Republicans for Environmental Protection congratulates our endorsed candidates for the U.S. Senate and House who won November 7 in a difficult year for Republicans. REP also congratulates California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger for the re-election that he earned through his results-oriented, environmentally responsible administration.

So celebrate the results of our political process, but remember that it all starts with you, with your neighbor, their neighbor, and on and on...

I began posting here because I saw an opportunity. A chance to cut through the complexity and confusion surrounding sustainability. To weed out the hype. To show how interconnected the issues, and the answers, can be. And to bring eConsciousness to more people in personal and relevant ways.

Sounds like a viable premise, doesn't it? Nonetheless, to make sure I'm not suffering from any illusions I figured the one month mark was a good time for a sanity check. And guess what? Along comes a large-scale consumer survey that seems to back me up on a number of points. Coincidental or not, this is powerful stuff that needs to be heeded.

Thanks to Joel Makower, noted mover and shaker in the sustainability and green business arena, for alerting me to this. In a recent entry on his blog Joel ponders Why Americans Don't Go Green, and gives us some advance research findings from a survey conducted by ecoAmerica, a non-profit focused on consumer marketing.

Here are a couple of the survey's high points (Gleaned from Joel's writing. The full survey should be released on ecoAmerica's website sometime in December '06):

1. There is no common agreement on what environmental concern means or what to do about it. The issues are too many, too diverse for agreement. My takeaway is that we need to find ways to tap individual motivations and meaningfulness. This energy can be harnessed in a new kind of consensus for planetary health that allows for a multiplicity of views and contributions.

2. Environmental complexity is paralyzing. The ways that an event can trigger a chain reaction, and upset any number of intricately balanced natural systems, are difficult to grasp. Joel points out the need to "show how problems can be addressed through simple, incremental changes in behavior," and I agree. The sheer volume of expertise that showers down on us day in and day out can be paralzying, to say the least. Moreover, things like good old scientific debate actually fuel the skeptics, who exploit the way our understanding is advanced for their own naysaying agendas. The answer, once again, lies in enabling a new kind of communication with the individual.

There's more on Joel's blog, and plenty more to come when the full study is released, I'm sure. Keep an eye out for it.

Meanwhile, I'm going to take all this to the bank, and redouble my efforts to make this blog a place where connections can be made and eConsciousness can truly be sparked and nourished. And, by the way, the lines are open (just click on 'comments' below and go for it) for you to kick in as well. I think we'd all like to hear from you.

What have we done? Report after report. Article after article. I fall into a pattern, guilt bubbling up when I hear once again about how we're impacting the far north, the frontier of global warming, the glimpse of things yet to arrive in our warmer climes.

But wait! What is this I'm hearing on the radio?

"We get journalists up here year-round. They come in migrations just like the snowbirds and the other animals and they want to see eskimos falling through holes in the ice or houses falling off of bluffs. We'll roll with whatever's going on. Our culture's built on change. We're strong, durable people and we just keep adjusting."

I have to admit, that got my attention. And the rest of the story held it there--right over the edge of discomfort. Discomfort and guilt. It was then that I realized, in a way I hadn't before, the complexities and the personal conflicts raised and around global warming. The denial of people already in the line of fire. The oversimplification of painting the scene with a broad brush.

The segment above comes from an interview with Richard Glenn, of Barrow, Alaska, who joins other Inupiat Eskimos and northern dwellers on public radio's excellent series--Frozen Assets, on Marketplace. True to form, this series makes you squint at global warming in a slightly different and illuminating way, if you know what I mean.

Give the series a listen or a quick read. I think we in the lower 48 can all use a dose of reality as seen through the eyes of people who are already dealing with what's to come. Real people. Some facing problems. Others opportunity. But still, another wake up call for us all.

Back after several days of 'health leave' I'm staggered by the volume of news and developments coming our way in the interim. There's a fascinating bit on Biomimetic Ocean Power for underwater electricity generation inpsired by kelp fronds, at WorldChanging.com.. And a warning that insects--yes, mosquitoes and the rest of the baddies as well as butterflies--may increase their populations at higher rates with warmer climate.

But the most talked about news I unvoluntarily dozed through was the release in the U.K. of the 'Stern' Review on Global Warming. By now, you all must know something of its key revelation: that "the benefits of strong and early action far outweigh the economics costs of not acting." It goes a long way to taking us beyond the pictures we have in our minds of melting arctic ice and smokestack-obscured sunsets. It helps us visualize the coming real economic and human costs--supporting untold numbers of climate refugees, dealing with floods, droughts, and storms...and yes, those damned mosquitoes.

I can't argue with the facts and figures, as many, including the folks over at my current favorite Environmental Economics site will. I can, however, do my best to urge that you make this topic number one at your dinner table, in your business, or in your emails. True, government (especially ours) will have to set its denial aside and redraw its policies for big things to happen--but your action and your voice are critical to making this happen.

I'll leave you with a look at the short and long executive summaries of the Stern report, a cogent review of the work by WorldChanging, and an insight into the nitty gritty environmental economist's take on it. Give 'em a look, and go forth confident that one by one we'll see the powers that be coming to grips with reality.

I can't believe it. Within minutes I learn 1) how much I really owe environmental scientist David Suzuki, and 2) how much I really owe environmental scientist David Sukuki. No typo here. Just two quick points.

"On October 9th, according to the Global Footprint Network, humanity went into ecological debt for the year, where demand for resources and the production of waste outpaced the planet's capacity to produce new resources and absorb the wastes."

In terms of framing an issue, how much more clear and memorable can this be? Many sustainability issues are complex and confusing, but this one isn't. There is a limit. And the speed at which we're approaching it is increasing, just as the date we go into ecological debt comes earlier each year. As described in the Living Planet Report 2006, we have hit ecological 'overshoot'. What does that mean, exactly? Well--and this too is an easy factoid to remember--it means that...

"...it now takes about one year and three months for the Earth to regenerate what we use in a single year."

Think about it.

So there you go. It's for bringing me this kind of clarity and needed information that I owe David Suzuki.

But here's the second reason realize how much I owe him. And that is that he won't be giving us his vital knowledge and breadth of understanding any more. If a Reuters report from Wednesday, October 25th is on the mark, Dr. Suzuki has decided to "quit the spotlight for a simple life." Away from the stages, and the lecture halls, and the book tours I suspect.

I can well understand how the man who inspired me with his unforgettable The Sacred Balance may deserve a better balance of his own now. But I will miss him. And work harder.

As you know by now, I believe that each individual will follow their eConsciousness where it feels right. They'll change the products they buy and use in their homes, lead their businesses towards sustainability, support local farms, or take a role in education and advocacy--each a form of activism in its own right.

They may just need a push to get there. So here's a reminder to add this action to all of your lists--vote. With a million small initiatives and some very large ones needed to avert the worst of a climate crisis, the more awareness and support that comes from our pubic servants, the better.

Three web sites will help you appreciate what's at stake and provide an easy way for you to help put climate change where it needs to be on the political agenda. First is the Climate Change Coalition site. Start here for a quick, comprehensive look at the latest, via background articles, news, and movie clips.

Next, click from the Coalition site or navigate directly to ClimateUSA. Here, you'll see the trailer for a revealing movie on moving beyond the Kyoto agreement, along with a plea for participating actively in the 2006 Congressional elections. And even though voting day is rapidly approaching, you can take a minute to remind your candidates of your concern about climate change and their ability to lead the way.

The Questions for Candidates site will look up the candidates in your area, and gives you a template loaded with important questions that you can forward to your candidates.

Look, with even Evangelical Christians signing on to the cause in rising numbers, the time for real action in our seats of government is here. It's easy for you to be a part of it, too.

There's a wonderful thing about traveling through the world of sustainability with an open and hungry mind. It's this--the chance to meet people who are able to teach us to think differently. People who can turn convention right on its head to reveal ways of solving problems that we might otherwise have just blown by.

Consider, for example, what we might accomplish by simply looking to the designs and processes of the natural world...

* Creating molecular sized batteries, modeled on the way plants convert and store energy from the sun
* Removing carbon dioxide from the air by literally changing it into usable and solid building material
* Emulating natural processes to enable growing fruits and vegetables year-round in cold, northern climates
* Developing closed-loop agricultural parks that run entirely on waste input and produce no waste output

Indeed, nature has the potential to show us how to remove toxins, eliminate waste, and live in a world where we need only a small fraction of the resources we now take from the earth.

I think it's fair to say that thinking differently, and getting others to do likewise, was a key takeaway from this past weekend's Bioneers by the Bay/ Connecting for Change conference at the Dartmouth campus of the University of Massachusetts. It's an event where non-profits, climate scientists, activists of one stripe or another, anthropologists, spiritual leaders, and sustainable business experts came together--both literally and figuratively.

The event took place concurrently with a Bioneers conference on the west coast and satellite sessions in between, and was hosted by the Marion Institute. Three days of plenaries and workshops gave plenty of time to connect with sustainability movers and shakers like Janine Benyus, Ray Anderson, Gunter Pauli, John and Nancy Todd, Lynn Margulis, and Paul Hawken.

I'll close by encouraging you to visit Bioneers on line and consider stepping 'into the green box' next time around. It was a weekend full of inspiring learning and growing. It was a conference I'll never forget.

Everyone tells me to specialize. All that I read about blogging tells me to specialize. And to all of that I say, sorry. Some rules are just made to try and break.

Here's my reasoning. As our planet itself is teaching us, things we never thought to be so are interdependent. We're finding connections and causality and relationships across the board. We're learning that when we do things that result in pollution, climate change, resource depletion, species extinction, and more, we trigger a cascade of events. Because it's all connected. We are all connected.

So along comes a sustainability movement encompassing all sorts of actions--some personal, some business related, some governmental, some spiritually driven. And guess what? They are all interdependent!

There you go. I write here to help us find our eConsciousness. To see how we can put it to good use. To see how and why others chose to do the same. And how can we accomplish this if we aren't willing to learn from each other? I want to create a place where the business-minded, the scientific, the spiritualist, the artist, the public servant and all come to travel together. I'm just here to connect the dots.

That's why I won't--or can't--specialize.

Enough of that. I want to leave you with a piece that I discovered a while back that puts a little more substance into the interdependence notion. It's beautifully written. And I thank David Suzuki, Canada's renowned environmentalist/scientist for it. Happy reading...

Declaration of Interdependence...

This We Know

We are the earth, through the plants and animals that nourish us.

We are the rains and the oceans that flow through our veins.

We are the breath of the forests of the land, and the plants of the sea.

We are human animals, related to all other life as descendants of the firstborn cell.

We share with these kin a common history, written in our genes.

We share a common present, filled with uncertainty.

And we share a common future, as yet untold.

We humans are but one of thirty million species weaving the thin layer of life enveloping the world.

The stability of communities of living things depends upon this diversity.

Linked in that web, we are interconnected -- using, cleansing, sharing and replenishing the fundamental elements of life.

Our home, planet Earth, is finite; all life shares its resources and the energy from the sun, and therefore has limits to growth.

For the first time, we have touched those limits.

When we compromise the air, the water, the soil and the variety of life, we steal from the endless future to serve the fleeting present.

This We Believe

Humans have become so numerous and our tools so powerful that we have driven fellow creatures to extinction, dammed the great rivers, torn down ancient forests, poisoned the earth, rain and wind, and ripped holes in the sky.

Our science has brought pain as well as joy; our comfort is paid for by the suffering of millions.

We are learning from our mistakes, we are mourning our vanished kin, and we now build a new politics of hope.

We respect and uphold the absolute need for clean air, water and soil.

We see that economic activities that benefit the few while shrinking the inheritance of many are wrong.

And since environmental degradation erodes biological capital forever, full ecological and social cost must enter all equations of development.

We are one brief generation in the long march of time; the future is not ours to erase.

So where knowledge is limited, we will remember all those who will walk after us, and err on the side of caution.

This We Resolve

All this that we know and believe must now become the foundation of the way we live.

At this turning point in our relationship with Earth, we work for an evolution: from dominance to partnership; from fragmentation to connection; from insecurity, to interdependence.

Boston Globe columnist Alex Beam has struck a blow to one of my most vivid childhood memories. One I've filed away in my 'being green before its time' file. I'm talking about air drying laundry, a practice that for good reason may be making a comeback.

Who from my baby boomer generation can't remember struggling with those springy clothespins, half wrapped up in a soggy bedsheet, or blushingly struggling with which part of mom's brassiere you're supposed to clip anyway? And how about the occasional deep freeze, when pants and shirts could stand up on their own--only to have to go right into the wash again--thanks, junior? Ahhh, now we get a second chance. And this time we'll know we're doing good. This time we're going to get it right. Right?

Not so fast. In Living green comes with a price, which appeared in the October 16th Living/Arts section, Beam shatters our expectations by noting that "a clothesline in a neighborhood can lower property values by 15 percent." Uh oh. Didn't think about that. Thanks, Alex (by way of Richard Monson, President of the California Association of Homeowners Associations, as told to Legal Affairs magazine).

So, are we simply to let this twisted version of NIMNBY (Not In My Neighbor's Back Yard) thwart our green-ness? Not on your life. We're going to hold the line (ouch!) on this one. After all, it won't be too long before a gas-guzzling SUV parked in the driveway will label a homestead as unsustainable and appropriately devalued as well. And by then clotheslines will be seen for what they really are.

Afterword:
Seriously, prohibitions against hanging laundry are an issue in communities across the country--thousands of them. Learn more about this, and what average people like you and me can do to adopt this as one of our paths to sustainability, by logging on to Project Laundrylist. You may be surprised by the degree of opposition, as well as the commitment of 'Right to Dry' advocates.

In his latest post on the Environmental Economics blog, Tim Haab puts the spotlight on one of the fundamental realities that impact sustainable economics--namely costs that pervade our system but for which there is no direct accountability, and thus little incentive to address. Well, in sustainable business circles the push is towards a different and more promising approach to these external costs.

Tim's example is a good one, using pollution as the unaccounted for cost:

In the process of producing something, say corn, the farmer applies fertilizers to improve the crop yield. Some of the costs and most of the benefits of the fertilizer are borne by the farmer. But, some of the costs of the fertilizer run-off the farm and into nearby waterways. The result? High nutrient loads in nearby waterways resulting in increased algal blooms, lower dissolved oxygen levels, and impure drinking water. To purify the drinking water, nearby towns have to pay extra to remove the extra nutrients. This extra cost has to come from somewhere. In an ideal setting, it would come from the farmer, because the farmer is responsible for generating the cost.

He follows on with:

The additional costs borne by the nearby towns are real costs. They are dollars that could be spent on things the town residents really want, but instead have to be used to ensure their drinking water is clean.

So when you think about sustainability and formulate your own take, remember...shifting costs away from those who cause them, a classic form of 'not my problem', is not a sustainable proposition. Ultimately they need to be accounted for upstream, where they originate. There, they can and will be addressed through the kind of innovation in product and processes that industry is capable of. There, the ultimate winners will minimize both their future risk as well as the downstream cost to their customers and society at large.

Someone's got to pay, right? Not so fast. Sustainable business principles tell us that both the who and the how much are not always what they seem to be.

I've been accused of writing long when I could write short. Of stretching a point when I should compress it. It's true. I know. But I did manage to compose a very brief new Profile to post on Technorati, the blog search site for the world. Believe me, the 250 word limit had me squirming quite a bit. Reminded me of some rather ill-advised spelunking I did back in my college days.

Anyhow, here's the profile, and here's a way you can click to the latest from Technorati easily. Have fun, and thanks again for helping this (ad)venture grow.

Technorati profile for The Unlikely Activist...

A career communicator, I've set out to awaken your eConsciousness-- as facilitator, translator, motivator. Travel with me through the world of sustainability and let's explore the balance between our needs and those of the earth systems we depend upon.